When was the last time someone invaded North America? Or that was even a threat of invasion? Since WWII, was there any need for any of the police actions/invasions/wars that the U.S. engaged in and/or started.
"Need" is a subjective and very relative term when used for national defense or strategic action. It's just the degree of transparency and honesty the federal government is willing to commit to that differentiate between bullshit military actions (any of Reagan's brushfires and the Iraq Wars) and strategically viable actions (Balkans, Afghanistan) that can produce positive, quantifiable results.
No one has fought for my freedom since WWII.
And arguably, they didn't then.
Roosevelt was a closet warmonger who was afraid isolationism was pushing America into a corner while the other empires carved up the rest of the world. I'm not one to latch onto conspiracy theories, but unprotected convoys shipping materiel to England, Pearl Harbor more or less left empty for attack? Any enemy strategic planner would see that as a golden opportunity to potentially knock off the US to potentially keep them out of their sphere of influence.
Especially in the case of Winston Churchill's jumping into the war to help Poland. Then blatant holes start appearing. When Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR didn't immediately annihilate each other of course he was concerned over the security of the UK. Poland had always served as a buffer state keeping Russia insulated from the rest of Europe, and again, when Hitler/Stalin didn't wage war at first, Poland was convenient grounds for declaring war.
And as for not blaming the soldiers, they have a duty and responsibility to ask if what they're doing is moral...
And it's rather funny you assume they don't.
A professional military, or really, any properly situated military in a stable country, exists as a tool to be used at the whim for that government. The soldier has a chain of command usually terminating at the head of state. Do you follow me so far? That head of state tells you to go somewhere, you go. It's really that simple. You general statement makes it obvious you really have no idea what a military career consists of, almost as if you think soldiers are still running around fighting like its WW2. Really, it's just like any other job. And boring as hell.
...which the vast majority obvious don't.
The vast majority just don't really care. But it's not unlike the vast majority of Americans or Canadians. Yeah, it bothers Joe Civilian that his country is meddling in the affairs of another country for reasons he can't understand or doesn't agree with, but in the end of the day it really doesn't matter if it doesn't affect him. Just because you don't hear about it in the news much doesn't mean there aren't the uniformed protesters, conscientious objectors, AWOLs, desertions, etc.
If they did, there'd be a hell of a lot less fighting going on.
Nope. A military is a tool of diplomacy, when diplomacy fails, and again - acts at the whim of the government it falls under.
Going by your tantrums in the past and your claimed higher education, you seem pretty naive about the world. Sorry for my use of a cliché, but the saying "old men start wars, young men fight them" is so true. It's heads of state and governments who decide who to fight, not the uniformed military.
When soldiers do act out of line, the common stereotype in the media is that they're automatically covered and get away without punishment, but the vast majority of time it doesn't work that way. Really, the civilian legal system has more cracks and holes in it for criminals who are obviously guilty but go away unpunished than the US military.
It's also flattering that you hold the common soldier to blame on the same level as a head of state.This comment was edited on May 25, 2009, 22:46.